Manual Refresh vs Real Time Updates

Developers should learn and implement manual refresh in applications where real-time data is not critical, to reduce server load and bandwidth usage, or to give users control over when updates occur meets developers should learn and implement real time updates when building applications that require instant data synchronization, such as messaging platforms, live sports scores, stock trading interfaces, or multiplayer games. Here's our take.

Manual Refresh

Nice Pick

Developers should learn and implement manual refresh in applications where real-time data is not critical, to reduce server load and bandwidth usage, or to give users control over when updates occur

Pros

• Common use cases include content-heavy websites (e
• Related to: automatic-refresh, caching

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Real Time Updates

Developers should learn and implement Real Time Updates when building applications that require instant data synchronization, such as messaging platforms, live sports scores, stock trading interfaces, or multiplayer games

Pros

• It enhances user experience by providing immediate feedback and reducing latency, making it crucial for modern web and mobile apps that demand responsiveness
• Related to: websockets, server-sent-events

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

Use Manual Refresh if: You want common use cases include content-heavy websites (e and can live with specific tradeoffs depend on your use case.

Use Real Time Updates if: You prioritize it enhances user experience by providing immediate feedback and reducing latency, making it crucial for modern web and mobile apps that demand responsiveness over what Manual Refresh offers.

The Bottom Line

Manual Refresh wins

Developers should learn and implement manual refresh in applications where real-time data is not critical, to reduce server load and bandwidth usage, or to give users control over when updates occur